PINJA Vs. HOSHIARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been directed against the decision dated 8th December, 1967 of the District Judge, Kansra, in a suit for recovery of Rs. 500/-as damages for standing crop cut and appropriated by the defendants, whereby confirming the decree of the Senior Sub-Judge who awarded Rs. 223. 13 for such crop, he has dismissed the appeal.

(2.) HOSHIARA-PLAINTIFF filed the suit and the allegations were, that the land measuring 8 Kanals, 7 Marias of Khasra No. 142, situate in Tika and mauza balehar, Tehsil Kangra, belongs to him, and that he had mortgaged the said land in favour of Pinja and two others--defendants in the case--for a sum of Rs. 725/ -. On 29-4-1964 Hoshiara filed an application before the Collector for the redemption of the mortgage. The Collector made his order of redemption on 8-7-1964 and since khariff crop of 1964 was standing on the land which, according to the collector was wrongly grown by the defendants, he awarded Rs. 100/- as compensation for this crop to the defendants along with the amount recoverable for the mortgage debt. On 14-7-1964 the warrant for delivery of possession was issued and on 17-8-1964 actual possession was delivered to the plaintiff by the field Kanungo who submitted his report to that effect. On 18-9-1964 the Collector made the order that actual possession was delivered to the plaintiff and in this manner, the proceedings came to an end. However, during the course of these proceedings and after the redemption order of the Collector, the defendants Pinja and others had filed a civil suit questioning the validity of the redemption decree, but this civil suit was also dismissed and the redemption order was held valid. According to the plaintiff, on 8th and 9th October, 1964 the defendants forcibly entered the field and cut and appropriated the standing crop.

(3.) THE defendants contested, that they were tenants in the land and as such they had a right to remain in the possession even after the redemption order. They alleged that actual delivery of possession was not given and that the crop having been grown by them belonged to them and they cut and appropriated it as of right. It was also urged that the amount claimed was excessive. The defendants further contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter.